another global warming "theory"

[Poseidon]

ok first of all there are a lot of topicas in yahoo questions that are woththy to discuss. well this is the first one i brougth.

Yahoo! Answers - How many of you agree with my Scientific theory?

I belive this "theory" is to radical, what do you think? give your opinion.

[The Architect]

As we all know our climate is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting causing waters to rise. Also due to the climate shifts deadly supper storms have appeared, and will increase exponentially as temperatures rise. Further causes of ice melt down will result in sea levels rising and costal cities shall flood causing human relocations on massive levels. I believe as it progresses the earth will shift violently due to increased pressures on the plates in turn creating or speeding up the process of volcanic activity and earthquakes. I surmise that in places the waters will flash boil killing much of the oceans sea life and cause severe torrential rains lasting for months even maybe years at a time. In turn due to violent earth eruptions the possibilities of a nuclear winter could eventually put the earth in a cooling trend repairing the planet but most of the life on earth would be destroyed and whoever is left will have to rebuild. As we all know we use up this planet and abuse it daily we are only destroying ourselves.

I dont agree with his theory, how does global warming put more wieght on the techtonic plates or "shift violently"?
We do abuse this planet but not that much, sealevels increase naturaly because the glaciers from the ice age melt nautraly. In earths history there have been several climate shifts, there was the medieval warm period and then the little ice age, then of course there was the climate shifts before humans.
He is right about the water and how it would flood cities but i dont see how all of that would increase the weight on the techtonic plates.
Global warming is probably not going to be a big problem in my lifetime, but I do beleive it is out responsibility to try and fix it.

[xyzer]

I would suggest your theory is borderline nonsense? Based on conjecture and certainly not proven! Why can't we just admit we just don't know? Why do some forecast doom based on assumptions which are not scientifically proven.
e.g. We don't know whether the current warming process will completely reverse it self in the near future? We don't know what the sun is going to do in the future? Will it become hotter or cooler? We don't know what type of major volcanic activity will be forthcoming...etc! We just dont know and neither do the climatologists. All they do is put together computer models and iterate to see what the results might be? If one is gloomy or possibly sensational, the press takes it and runs...the Gores of the world see monetary gain in inflating it? Ad nauseam!

[Jack]

the Gores of the world see monetary gain in inflating it

How so?

On the profits made from the film and book: “My wife Tipper and I are devoting 100% of whatever profits we receive from both the movie and the book to a new organization of The Alliance for Climate Protection that environmental groups in the United States have helped to initiate, but goes beyond environmental groups to include faith groups, labor and business groups and they are planning now a nation-wide persuasion campaign in the United States. And in fact, Paramount has done something unprecedented in agreeing to contribute 5% of its domestic gross from this movie. They have already committed $5,000 as a minimum.”

Source

[JohnMK]

Indeed, incredible, and quite separate from Gores of the world, xyzer. There is a difference between insanity and being wrong. His Excelsior, Al Gore, sincerely and passionately believes we've some troubles ahead and wants us to be totally serial about it. I think other posters have taken issue with your claim that Gore is motivated in pecuniae. Can you give me an objective portrayal of how those debates went?

When I disagree with someone, I can very often understand both how and why it is they think the way they do, and I can see it as sincere (when I think it is), even if I know they're reaching a wrong conclusion. You, not having that capability to as well-developed an extent, superimpose your weltenschauung into their brain by default and can only imagine they're lying, since their view is so evidently false. You'll have far more success (unless you're merely trying to gain popularity amongst the choir) by assuming a little bit more sincerity in those who hold views contrary to your own.

[xyzer]

How so?

On the profits made from the film and book: “My wife Tipper and I are devoting 100% of whatever profits we receive from both the movie and the book to a new organization of The Alliance for Climate Protection that environmental groups in the United States have helped to initiate, but goes beyond environmental groups to include faith groups, labor and business groups and they are planning now a nation-wide persuasion campaign in the United States

You have a point Ish? However, I was of the impression that if a business or enterprise makes a profit there are many intermediary employees suppliers, that also achieve financial gain in the process? What they do with their profit/salary is their own business..e.g. If Gore and family have enough to give it away.does that obliterate the financial gain of all involved? Not really and it buttresses my contention that Gore makes a heck of a lot more than his government pensions from Congressional Service and his stint as VP. Why else would he donate it to such a doubtful cause? He must be truly rich from his pensions, speeches and other environmental efforts? He donates to a cause that echos his public efforts...

[xyzer]

JohnMK..

When I disagree with someone, I can very often understand both how and why it is they think the way they do, and I can see it as sincere (when I think it is), even if I know they're reaching a wrong conclusion

It follows from this quote that you agree with me that Gore and his fellow climate doomsday, faddists may have reached the wrong, vastly premature conclusions? This site and board are placed here for opinions and dissent not faddish liberal agreement that the "sky is falling down"! I'm not going to agree with purveyors of nonsense because I'm trying to impress anyone...thats playground logi IMNSHO!

I don't believe the nonsensical unproven climate theories hawked by some researchers. Yes I criticise the willingness of the press to cherry pick and inflate these theories which are usually prefaced by words such as 'would', 'could', 'might' 'may'. I criticize opportunists like Gore who has no formal training in climate or science and yet uses his notoriety to push unproven theories and alarm millions. Uses his postiton to cause millions of dollars to be spent for remedies that humankind has no way of using with our present knowledge and technology!?
If you think humankind can influence the earths natural climate engines you are also misguided and naive!
Just today I read this.in the London Telegraph..

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in. It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun

The latest crack in the predictive industry on climate...I can add that we still can't even predict weather with much accuracy..why are you so ready to believe we can predict climate?? Why can't the researchers they just say we don't know? Would this result in less profit?

[JohnMK]

That's good news on the sea-level rise front, xyzer.

I don't see the question of the existence (and extent) of man-made contributions to global warming as a political issue; it would appear that some conservatives and liberals turn it into one. The mitigationof man-made global warming (at least of that which is man-made), will be decided upon at the political level. I think what separates conservatives and liberals here (I despise these terms but will use them nevertheless for now) in part is the approach they would take to mitigating man-made global warming. There's also the matter of preemption, which in various theaters conservatives and liberals seem quite willing to entertain and in others are loathe, e.g. preemptive military action, preemption climate change mitigation, and so on. Liberals are quite willing to expropriate wealth and conservatives are not, so as a tendency it's clear that conservatives would hesitate until it becomes more clearly necessary (except in cases of war, morality, etc.). I suggest that until we can be more sure of what's going on with our climate, we should take a small amount of government expenditure and allocate it to the low-lying fruit of climate mitigation. I think of man-made global warming as something like Russian roulette -- do you really want to play that game? Our approach doesn't have to be binary. Reducing man-made global warming severity is an order of magnitude more cheaply done than completely halting it completely. Almost everybody cares about the Earth and agrees that we want it be around for us and our descendents. The approach to this care doesn't have to be binary in any particular sphere . . .

[xyzer]

I suggest that until we can be more sure of what's going on with our climate, we should take a small amount of government expenditure and allocate it to the low-lying fruit of climate mitigation.

We are on the same trail! We don't have conclusive evidence that human caused emissions are a major cause in climate change and irregularity. Some scientists suspect it does! Sure we should allocate some government funds for further study.....But we should not get into a frantic doomsday scenario where the economy is hurt by extensive curtailment of production, etc. Kyoto was an example of that one. Even the Senate couldn't buy into that one though Bush was blamed by the democrats for nixing our participation. Subsequent experience of the nations that did participate shows it hasn't been very effective?
People like Al Gore are fanning the flames of demagoguery for profits(and it may also be an important cause to them) using their fame to push an agenda that features alarmism, features throwing a bunch of unproven assumptions(some immediately refuted)at a gullible public.

[xyzer]

This just out? FOXNews.com - Top Ten Junk Science Moments for 2006 - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs
Note ..3 of the top ten junk science moments of 2006(1.,3. and 5) related to global warming?
Gores spoof "The inconvenient truth" ranked as number one!
The author posts...

I personally asked Mr. Gore to help arrange a debate between scientists about the purported climate catastrophe. He declined (twice) without explanation – leaving me to wonder why global warming alarmists are unwilling to explain why they believe in non-validated and always-wrong computer guess-timations of future climate change rather than actual temperature measurements and greenhouse-effect physics that indicate manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are not a problem.

Swedish researchers provided experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in climate change. They calculated that just 5 years of cosmic ray activity can have 85 percent of the effect on the Earth’s climate as 200 years of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Though the study was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, the findings went largely unreported by the Al Gore-smitten media.

Another underreported crack in the myth that has been perpetuated about human responsibility for global warming!

[Pooeypants]

It's not been neglected, merely that it is one of a few hypothesis attempting to address this phenomenon. The paper's author himself doesn't think that even if his model is accepted that it'll absolve human influence. source

[kingmea]

Quote by: xyzer This just out? FOXNews.com - Top Ten Junk Science Moments for 2006 - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs Note ..3 of the top ten junk science moments of 2006(1.,3. and 5) related to global warming? Gores spoof "The inconvenient truth" ranked as number one! The author posts... Another underreported crack in the myth that has been perpetuated about human responsibility for global warming!

Everyone knowns Fox News is anything but "fair and equal," and is conservative propaganda. This is just another example of it, trying to bash Gore's Inconvienent truth to support the president's take on global warming. It isn't even considered journalism, you might as well quote Oprah.

[another day]

Pseudo science...he theorizes that parts of the water will flash boil? What is this based on. Nothing..its just dreamed up.

[xyzer]

Everyone knowns Fox News is anything but "fair and equal," and is conservative propaganda

Really kingmea? I didn't know that! I thought it was a refreshing alternative to the leftist propaganda and politivcally correct nonsense we are bombarded with from the mainstream media?
You mean CNN and the New York times are fair and balanced? I question that assertion...Listen to Fox News (Not O'reilly and some of their puditry) Shep Smith comex to mind. After you listen to his news broadcast get back up and tell me it was anything bur fair reporting of news without editorial comment?

[Kuroko]

I think the best way to understand the future is to look towards the past but some thing troubles me there.

Every ten thousand years or so an ice age event happens and we are drastically over-due for one..

[xyzer]

Kuroko...I bow to you innate wisdom! I'm stocking my shelves with woolens too. It sure has been happening since way before humankind polluted the earth...This just might convince the reasonable among us that climate change happens from natural causes? Unfortunately the gores and alarmist have a strange way of stifling logic...

[Pooeypants]

People naturally get cancer all the time so there is no reason to suspect that there may be over factors involved which can cause or increase risk of cancer.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Architect I dont agree with his theory, how does global warming put more wieght on the techtonic plates or "shift violently"? We do abuse this planet but not that much, sealevels increase naturaly because the glaciers from the ice age melt nautraly. In earths history there have been several climate shifts, there was the medieval warm period and then the little ice age, then of course there was the climate shifts before humans. He is right about the water and how it would flood cities but i dont see how all of that would increase the weight on the techtonic plates. Global warming is probably not going to be a big problem in my lifetime, but I do beleive it is out responsibility to try and fix it.

The person is thinking that if all the ice melts (due to global warming) on the north and south poles then that would add extra weight to the oceans per footage. And he then made a big leap to suggest that water weight (gravity) is the cause of earth quakes or shifts in earth's crust. And that earthquakes would then somehow open up places for more vocano activity. Not sure if anyone here is a student (or teacher) of Geology or not.

Some scientists feel that the melting ice cap waters could cause the jet stream to shift which would cause drastic climate changes for some countries - England in particular. That comes from people who study the oceans and the such.

The thing is we got experts who specialize in different sciences and not a lot of folks who study all aspects and how they might connect together to cause such chain effects as that "theory" speculated.

It sounds more like the fellow is into those "end times" Biblical predictions that some feel might happen any day now, due to such ideas as the one reported in that Yahoo location.

Art Bell wrote a simular book which was made into a TV movie. Where they mixed together different theories that are not related.

But something is happening, no doubt about it. Storms and weather patterns are breaking new records each year. The ocean temperatures are warmer which is causing predictable side effects. The ozone hole(s) are getting giganic. Some islands are endangered causing people to move off of them and some northern villages were endangered by melting ice caps.

Migration patterns of birds and other wildlife is shifting due to warming of the ice caps up north. Polar Bears are forced to move south because seals must also relocate. Major events are taking place and nations should bring forth their best scientific minds to seek solutions in an urgent timeframe. But not scientists employed by oil compaines or President Bush.

Science can help but action must take place in the poltical arena.